Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (1.97 seconds)
Documents citing Sealand Shipping & Export Pvt.Ltd vs Kin-Ship Services (India) Pvt. Ltd on 6 June, 2011

Housing Board, Haryana And Anr vs M/S Comfits Marketing And Ors on 13 August, 2019

Similarly, in the case of Sealand Shipping & Export Pvt. Ltd. vs. Kin-ship Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., 2011(5) Bom. C.R. 572, the Supreme Court has held that even if the plea of limitation is not specifically raised in the arbitration petition, the court is bound to consider such plea while considering a petition under Section 34 of the Act and there 8 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 25-08-2019 06:14:04 ::: FAO-4329-2004 (O&M) -9- cannot be any waiver on the issue of limitation.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - J Thakur - Full Document

Union Of India vs Kiran Infra Engineers Limited on 30 April, 2022

Page No.7 of 23 Hotels Pvt Lted & Anr Vs. UOI & Anr, 182 (2011) DLT 597, Satender Kumar Vs. MCD, ARB P No. 263/2009, decided on 04.02.2010, Sealand Shipping & Export Pvt Ltd Vs. Kin-ship Services (Ind) Pvt Ltd, Arbt No. 178/2007, disposed off on 06.06.2011, Eider PW1 Paging Ltd Vs. UOI & Ors, OMP No. 78/2003, decided on 03.02.2010 and Economic Transport Organization Delhi Vs. Charan Spinning Mills Pvt Ltd, (2010) 4 SCC 114 to contend that the award is against the fundamental policy of India being patently illegal and is liable to be set aside.
Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shyama Power India Limited vs Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited on 7 July, 2022

36. Lastly, he submitted that the contention raised by SPIL that it was not given an opportunity to controvert the plea of limitation and raise evidence in this regard, is erroneous inasmuch as, the plea of limitation was raised by HVPNL in the oral hearings before the Arbitral Tribunal as well as in the written submissions filed by HVPNL. He referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Binod Bihari Singh v Union of India: AIR 1993 SC 1245 and of the Bombay High Court in Sealand Shipping and Export Pvt. Ltd. v. Kinship Services (India) Pvt. Ltd.:
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - V Bakhru - Full Document

Union Of India vs M/S. Sun Media Services on 30 June, 2011

20 I have already observed in Arbitration Petition No. 178 of 2007, Sealand Shipping & Export Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kin-ship Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. dated 6 June 2011, on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court that the Arbitrator is under obligation to award the claims or measure of damages, based upon the proved material on the record and not otherwise. The Arbitrator is under obligation to follow the basic law, as well as, the procedural law. Paragraph 41 of the same reads as under:-
Bombay High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 3 - A V Mohta - Full Document

Taj Air Ltd vs Aviators on 11 June, 2012

18 The party, in a given case to settle the matter and/or to end the litigation, without prejudice to their rights, agreed to settle the matter by making lump sum amount. The contents of the letter so referred above shows that the Petitioner's intention was to settle the matter by paying the lump sum amount, but as the Respondent failed to accept the same, in my view, it cannot be stated to be the acknowledgement ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:39:26 ::: 11 arbp1180.10.sxw ssm of liability of whole amount so claimed, as accepted and considered by the learned Arbitral Tribunal in the present case. Other than above letter/acknowledgement no material whatsoever placed on record by the Respondent. The Respondent never pleaded and/or made such ground to claim the exemption of limitation and/or to bring the claim within limitation. In the present case, therefore, I am not inclined to accept the case of the Respondent and/or reasoning given by the learned Arbitral Tribunal. The claim so raised, the amount so awarded, was never admitted by the Petitioner within the period of limitation. Therefore, there was no acknowledgement in writing and/or signed by the Parties. All these basic elements are missing in the present case. Therefore, without going further into the merits of the matter, in view of the above position on record, I am inclined to set aside the award.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - A V Mohta - Full Document

Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs M/S Harcharan Dass Gupta on 4 October, 2012

However, Mr. Phoolka relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Kamlesh Babu v. Lajpat Rai Sharma (2008) 12 SCC 577 and the decision of the Bombay High Court in Sealand Shipping & Export Pvt. Ltd. v. Kinship Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2012 (1) R.A.J. 589 (Bom) to urge that since such a plea went to the root of the matter, it could be raised even at this stage.
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - S Muralidhar - Full Document
1   2 Next